[AdmiralRalwood]

That's sorta what I was driving at, with the reservation that you don't want to teach kids till they're mature enough to understand.

No, you want to each as early as possible. That doesn't mean you want to teach everything, but you need to get the information out there.

Actually, I think that sex ed should start very early, but be tailored to the child's age. That way it's never something alien and forbidden "just because". We're so overloaded with sexuality these days that it's impossible for even the youngest children not to encounter it, despite all the laws. So it should be made as clear as possible early, and the education should continue to adulthood. That would probably also help smooth out relationships between different genders a bit.

Exactly this. I may be biased because that's how it was done with me, but to be honest, I like the way I was taught sex ed. Not by the moronic school system, though...

[Lorric]

I always point to the statistics regarding the Netherlands and the early and proactive sexual education they provide and the fact that (last time I checked anyway) they have the lowest teen pregnancies in Europe.

Knowledge is power. Sexual education basically sucks in the UK, and so it's no surprise that the teen pregnancy rate sucks too.

[Dragon]

Same with me, my parents were pretty open with me. And it is parents' job, because the only thing school system can do with sex ed is to screw it up like it did with just about everything else (same as with teaching kids basic manners...). Not to mention that by the time kid's in school, it's a bit late already, the earlier you start, the better. Of course, that doesn't mean they need to be told everything at once. You don't teach 6 year olds integration and differential equations, either, as useful as they might be.

I will consider abstinence an effective contraceptive method when it demonstrates that it can be an effective contraceptive method.

Well, it can definitely be an effective contraceptive method if you stick to it. It's hard to have kids without having sex, despite what they might say about Mary. Still, the biggest problem is that people are, generally, not good at sticking to it. Because sex is fun, and this fact is naturally coded into our brains. It's an evolutionary adaptation (people who didn't find sex fun didn't reproduce), and overcoming that requires resolve people don't have. Bad sex ed, or lack of it, doesn't help. So it can be argued it's not a problem with the method itself, but with people not sticking to it.

Still, setting your faith's standards that high just isn't going to work, especially in Christianity in which you can always be forgiven for almost all sins. Preaching abstinence was good where there were no such things as condoms (it was poor contraception vs. no contraception), but now times are different.

[AdmiralRalwood]

You don't teach 6 year olds integration and differential equations, either, as useful as they might be.

Well, actually, I found myself wishing Calculus was taught much earlier, as well...

[666maslo666]

The threshold for teaching sex ed is set not by subjective bickering but by biology. It should obviously happen before puberty or during its early stages, so around grade 5. Of course, in age appropriate form. Which does include contraception and condoms.

[Scotty]

If the problem with abstinence is the people, it is still a problem with the method.  Any method that is ineffective is ineffective.  Literally, that is the tautological definition of the situation.  Obviously, for actually effective contraception, an effective method needs to be used, or else abandon the cause altogether (hint: that's a bad idea).

[Mikes]

I will consider abstinence an effective contraceptive method when it demonstrates that it can be an effective contraceptive method.  So far it has not.  Whether this is because of external influencing factors (poor sex ed) or not, the case remains that abstinence is not an effective contraceptive method in the modern world.

"Abstinence movements" always strike me as a classic case of futilely banging your head against a wall of human nature, empirical evidence and common sense.

Optionally add "blaming sinners/weak minds" in order to make yourself feel morally superior and try to justify ignoring any empirical evidence about it's ineffectiveness.

[Polpolion]

If the problem with abstinence is the people, it is still a problem with the method.  Any method that is ineffective is ineffective.  Literally, that is the tautological definition of the situation.  Obviously, for actually effective contraception, an effective method needs to be used, or else abandon the cause altogether (hint: that's a bad idea).

Abstinence is the smartass response to the safe-sex question. It's not that it's ineffective (though it is), it's that it doesn't even address the crux of the issue: sex is a thing that people will do whether you approve or not. Telling them that abstinence is a good method of birth control and prophylactic is like telling the Army the best body armor is pacifism.

[InsaneBaron]

Same with me, my parents were pretty open with me. And it is parents' job, because the only thing school system can do with sex ed is to screw it up like it did with just about everything else (same as with teaching kids basic manners...). Not to mention that by the time kid's in school, it's a bit late already, the earlier you start, the better. Of course, that doesn't mean they need to be told everything at once. You don't teach 6 year olds integration and differential equations, either, as useful as they might be.

It's certainly the parents job, although unfortunately the parent's don't always live up to it. I think part of the problem is determining the right age to teach the right concepts. I would probably wait longer than most people are suggesting here, but it comes down to individual maturity, the requirements of the child's environment, and parental judgement, which the school system can't adapt to effectively. So I won't advocate any one cut-and-dried age chart.

Speaking in general, no method is effective on people who don't practice it, and abstinence (in this sense) doesn't mean permanent virginity but rather committing to a partner without cheating on them or starting before you're ready to commit. So when effective education is provided, it's extremely effective at making sure children are born into stable homes and limiting the spread of disease. If people reject the method, what happens to them is not an indicator of the method's effectiveness.

Having said pretty much everthing I have to say, I'm calling it quits with this debate because of real-life issues. I'll be off HLP for about a week.

[Scotty]

If people reject the method, what happens to them is not an indicator of the method's effectiveness.

When it comes to abstinence, this is the only indicator of the method's effectiveness, because the method crucially fails at either disincentivizing sex, or incentivizing safe sex.  Essentially, if people reject the method, the method is flawed.

[InsaneBaron]

Who said anything about deincentivizing? It's not about removing an incentive to do something bad, it's about learning when and where to do something that is, in fact, good. Either you're mistaken about the nature of chastity/abstinence as advocated by Christianity (and to be fair, there are multiple definitions of these words, so it's an easy mistake to make) or you assume that a responsible, committed marriage is beyond the ability of most humans. I don't think human nature has fallen that far.

Ultimately, the method works for those who adopt it, therefore I practice it myself and encourage others to do so. And that's essentially the Pope's line of reasoning as well.

[Scotty]

In order for a method to be effective, there must be either incentive or disincentive.  If you think that people are going to magically comply with abstinence because by golly they learned about it then I have a bridge to sell you.

Remember, the target audience for abstinence based contraceptive methods are teenagers.  You know, that group of the population who's decision making cortexes have not yet fully formed and are notoriously bad of judgment?  Expecting them to behave like a rational, logical adult on the subject is building your house on the beach at low tide.  It won't work, and you'll be stuck wondering just what went wrong.

[InsaneBaron]

In order for a method to be effective, there must be either incentive or disincentive.  If you think that people are going to magically comply with abstinence because by golly they learned about it then I have a bridge to sell you.

Remember, the target audience for abstinence based contraceptive methods are teenagers.  You know, that group of the population who's decision making cortexes have not yet fully formed and are notoriously bad of judgment?  Expecting them to behave like a rational, logical adult on the subject is building your house on the beach at low tide.  It won't work, and you'll be stuck wondering just what went wrong.

1. Stable marriages seem like a pretty good incentive to me.
2. Given that this is a community comprised heavily of teenagers... moving on. I don't think teenagers in general are as bad as that, but at any rate no one is going to ever be able to act like a responsible adult if they're not taught how. I'm advocating teaching them how.

[Nuke]

Abstinence is the perfect non-solution to the safe-sex problem. The idea that everyone is going to wait until marriage to have sex is silly, but it gets absolutely asinine in places that have terrible sex education (or none at all). Try telling your kids not to eat unhealthy food without telling them what unhealthy food is and see what happens. This is the same problem.

it has a horrible side effect of causing people to get married early before they have fully developed into functional adults. some years down the line after they have kids, **** hits the fan and they get divorced. let em practice safe sex and get it out of their system, then they can get an education and enter the workforce without creating a generation of messed up children.

Actually, I think that sex ed should start very early, but be tailored to the child's age. That way it's never something alien and forbidden "just because". We're so overloaded with sexuality these days that it's impossible for even the youngest children not to encounter it, despite all the laws. So it should be made as clear as possible early, and the education should continue to adulthood. That would probably also help smooth out relationships between different genders a bit.

early sex ed needs to have the sole purpose of preventing sexual abuse of children. no need to teach kindergarteners how to put on a condom, thats more of a junior high subject. the slideshow of diseased dicks can probibly wait till the second year of high school. its probibly a bad idea to aim younger just to educate the few extreme edge cases that you would end up with anyway. such as 9 year old mothers and prepubescent boys with aids. from a biology standpoint, how babies are made should be told to the kids when they ask, rather than be given a pile of horse ****, though the anatomy diagrams can probibly wait till 4th grade. its likely the kids would have played doctor by then anyway.

[Lorric]

how babies are made should be told to the kids when they ask.

Heh. I was asking this from the age of three.

And I knew the babies were inside the mothers, so they couldn't fob me off with



I wonder what it's like to be chastised by one so young. I can't tell you, but I can recall making them squirm.

[The E]

1. Stable marriages seem like a pretty good incentive to me.

It really isn't. Wishing for a stable marriage is an adult wish, an adult concern, not something Joe Average Teenager thinks about.

2. Given that this is a community comprised heavily of teenagers... moving on. I don't think teenagers in general are as bad as that, but at any rate no one is going to ever be able to act like a responsible adult if they're not taught how. I'm advocating teaching them how.

No, this community is actually mostly older. At least the people who you interact with here in GD are generally well out of their teens.

And yes, teenagers are that bad, through no fault of their own. They can't make the risk evaluation more experienced people can do. They don't know what "a stable marriage" means for them.

[AdmiralRalwood]

And yes, teenagers are that bad, through no fault of their own. They can't make the risk evaluation more experienced people can do. They don't know what "a stable marriage" means for them.

Not to mention the fact that every teenager is a psychopath.

[Nuke]

everyone should go read lord of the flies. children are evil horrible creatures. also go watch the killing fields, i love that little asian girl who is always killing and torturing people.

[Scotty]

1. Stable marriages seem like a pretty good incentive to me.

I am not legally allowed to get married in my home state.  Where does that leave me?  What incentive is there for me to stay abstinent?  The correct response is "to not get STDs", but there are other, infinitely more fun ways to get around that particular problem.  Abstinence does not have a significant benefit above another method of contraception.

[InsaneBaron]

Posted twice by mistake, see next page.